FIRDOUS AHMAD
SRINAGAR, Feb 12: In a significant development highlighting the growing intersection of social media discourse and reputational rights, the Court of the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, has granted interim relief to a local social activist in a high-stakes defamation suit seeking damages to the tune of ₹1100 crores. The order was passed on February 12, 2026, in a civil suit instituted by Sandeep Mawa, son of Roshan Lal Mawa, a resident of Karun Nagar, Srinagar.
The suit has been filed through Advocate Arzaan Ahmad Dar & Associates against as many as 16 defendants, including religious figures, political functionaries, editors, media platforms, and social media handlers. The principal defendant in the case is Sheikh Ghulam Rasool, also known as Hami, son of Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, a resident of Iqbal Colony, Mustafa Abad, Zainakote, Srinagar. The other defendants named in the suit include Rakesh Handoo of Faridabad; Karwan Info Centre, Karwan Islamic Institute through its handler Yousuf Khake of Shadipora, Sumbal; Tariq Vigas of Bursal, Ganderbal; Towseef Raza Qadri through handler Towseef Ahmad of Maloora, Srinagar; Sameer-ul-Azam of Chewdara, Beerwah; Parwaz News Hub through its Editor Muheet of Wakura, Ganderbal; Abdul Ahad Mir, also known as Madgoomi, spokesperson and resident of Abroo Tarhama; Jamal Kashmiri of Budgam; Kashmir Pride through Editor Shahbaz Bashir; Yawar Nabi of Makhoom, Budgam; Mirwaiz Maulana Hassan Firdousi of Lawaypora, Srinagar; Vijay Bakaya of Sidrah Housing Colony, Jammu; Sanjay Saraf, Chairman of Lok Jan Shakti Party, resident near Shive Mandir, Indra Nagar, Srinagar; Firdous Ahmad Bhat, son of Ghulam Nabi Bhat; and Rafiq Ahmad Bhat, associated with Janta Dal as Editor to Defendant No. 2.
According to the contents of the plaint, the plaintiff has alleged that the defendants engaged in a coordinated and sustained campaign of defamatory remarks, imputations, and personal attacks against him. The suit claims that the alleged defamatory material was circulated through social media platforms, digital handles, videos, and public addresses. It is further alleged that the imputations extended beyond public criticism and intruded into the plaintiff’s personal life and religious identity, thereby tarnishing his reputation in society.
The plaintiff has contended that he has, in his capacity as a social activist, consistently opposed certain practices which he believed were misleading people in the name of religion, including references to religious relics (Tabrukat). According to the plaint, this opposition allegedly triggered hostility from certain quarters, leading to what has been described as a “scathing attack” on his character. The suit alleges that photographs and other materials relating to the plaintiff were uploaded and circulated without his consent, accompanied by statements that were defamatory, derogatory, and violative of community guidelines.
It has also been alleged that the defendants acted in connivance with one another, amplifying the imputations through various media platforms and digital networks, thereby exaggerating and perpetuating the alleged falsehoods. The plaint states that the controversy created was entirely unfounded and designed to damage the public image of the plaintiff. The reputational harm, the plaintiff claims, has caused him immense mental distress, disrupted his regular life, and lowered his standing in the eyes of society at large.
Seeking redress, the plaintiff has claimed compensation amounting to ₹100 crores, asserting that the damage to his reputation is substantial and irreversible in nature.
While considering the application for interim relief under Order 39(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court observed that the grounds urged in the plaint were well defined and warranted consideration at this stage. The court held that a prima facie case had been established in favour of the plaintiff and that the balance of convenience tilted in his favour. It further noted that if the relief sought was not granted, the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable loss, particularly in relation to his personal repute and social status.
In its order, the court observed that the accusations brought against the plaintiff were of grave concern as they allegedly intruded into his personal life and reputation. Stating that the court was bound to intervene to prevent further damage, it dispensed with the requirement of prior notice under Order 39(3) CPC and temporarily restrained the defendants from circulating, publishing, or making any defamatory or derogatory statements against the plaintiff until the next date of hearing.
However, the court clarified that the defendants are at liberty to approach it for modification, variation, or cancellation of the interim order before the next date of hearing. The plaintiff has been directed to furnish copies of the plaint, supporting documents, and affidavits to the defendants at the time of service of summons and to file a service affidavit before the court.
The matter has been listed for hearing on February 20, 2026, when the respondents are expected to file their objections.
The case has attracted attention in legal circles as it underscores the increasing number of defamation disputes arising from digital platforms and public commentary. The proceedings are likely to be closely watched, particularly in the context of balancing freedom of expression with the right to reputation in an era of instantaneous and far-reaching online communication.
